Hill v. Fishing Vessel St. Rosalie

Decision Date18 December 1967
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 66-777.
Citation277 F. Supp. 636
PartiesAlan G. HILL, Jr., and James A. Brink, as Trustees of the Rocky Neck Sport Fishing Dock Trust, Libellants, v. FISHING VESSEL ST. ROSALIE, her Engines, Tackle, Equipment and Appurtenances, Libellee.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Blair L. Perry, Hale & Dorr, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Frank Handy, Richard B. Kydd, Kneeland & Splane, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

OPINION

JULIAN, District Judge.

This is an in rem proceeding in which the libellants, owners of the vessel VICTORY, seek to recover damages sustained by them when the VICTORY was struck and partially sunk by the fishing vessel ST. ROSALIE in Gloucester Inner Harbor on the morning of July 14, 1966.

Findings of Fact

The VICTORY was a wooden vessel of 12 gross tons, 40.5 feet in length, powered by a diesel engine. She was operated by the libellants out of the Port of Gloucester, Massachusetts, as a party fishing boat carrying passengers on a charter basis on fishing excursions.

Libellants are the Trustees of the Rocky Neck Sport Fishing Dock Trust, a Massachusetts business trust, and in that capacity were the owners of the VICTORY.

The respondent fishing vessel ST. ROSALIE was owned at all times relevant hereto by the intervening claimant, Boat Maria Immaculata, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation.

The fishing vessel ST. ROSALIE is a wooden commercial fishing vessel of 65 gross tons, 65 feet in length, operated by the claimant out of the Port of Gloucester, Massachusetts.

At approximately 7:30 a. m. on July 14, 1966, the ST. ROSALIE struck and damaged the VICTORY as the VICTORY sat at her mooring in a mooring area located in Gloucester Inner Harbor. At the time of the accident the sea was calm, the weather clear, visibility unlimited, and wind velocity insignificant.

At the time of the collision the VICTORY was not, nor had she been, moving through the water. She was standing still in the water, properly moored to a mooring duly assigned to her by the Harbor Master of Gloucester, preparing to get under way, with her engine in operation but not engaged. The captain of the VICTORY was holding in his hand the end of the mooring line, which he had untied from the boat and snagged around a post on deck, thus holding the boat fast to the mooring. He and a crew member had boarded the VICTORY only moments before. The crew member was in the process of making fast to the VICTORY the small punt they had used to travel from the shore. Neither man saw the ST. ROSALIE until a few seconds before she struck the VICTORY.

The mooring at which the VICTORY was tied was located within an area of the Inner Harbor designated by the Harbor Master for mooring purposes. The VICTORY's stern, which was the closest part of that vessel to the channel, was at least 10 yards from the southwesterly edge of the main channel for shipping traffic. The edge of the channel was clearly marked by buoys.

Several minutes prior to the collision the ST. ROSALIE left the Ocean Crest fish pier, located at the innermost end of Gloucester Inner Harbor, and proceeded southwesterly toward the mouth of the Inner Harbor at a speed of approximately 7 knots. The captain in charge of the ST. ROSALIE was in the pilot house steering the vessel down the center of the 200-foot-wide channel.

The ST. ROSALIE had no lookout. At least five crew members were at work on the forward deck, but their attention was concentrated on their activities there rather than on the vessel's course.

As the ST. ROSALIE proceeded down the channel the mooring area in which the VICTORY rode at mooring lay to the ST. ROSALIE'S starboard side. Just prior to the collision the ST. ROSALIE veered to starboard from her course, left the channel, and entered the mooring area. The bow of the ST. ROSALIE struck the VICTORY on the latter's starboard stern quarter. There was nothing to obstruct the captain's view of the mooring area and of the VICTORY as he sailed down the channel and approached the scene of the collision. Nevertheless, he did not see the VICTORY at any time before he struck her. His failure to keep the ST. ROSALIE on its proper course and to see the VICTORY in time to avoid colliding with her was due to his carelessness and inattention. The collision and the resulting damage to the VICTORY were caused solely by the captain's negligent operation of the ST. ROSALIE. At the time of the collision the captain was the employee of the claimant and was acting within the scope of his employment.

The impact of the collision sheared off the VICTORY's stern transom, which floated away. The VICTORY's bow rose high in the water, and the boat's forward section shot forward a few yards but quickly settled in the water. The forward section, from which the two crew members were rescued by a passing lobsterman, sank almost completely, only the prow remaining above water. Both parts of the boat were eventually towed to shore.

Although the captain and others aboard the ST. ROSALIE knew that she had collided with the VICTORY and that as a result of the collision the VICTORY was sinking rapidly, and although the VICTORY sank about 10 yards from the point of collision, the ST. ROSALIE rendered no assistance to the stricken vessel or its crew1 but, instead, continued toward the mouth of the harbor without stopping.

The captain of the ST. ROSALIE failed to stay by the VICTORY although he could have done so without danger to the ST. ROSALIE and its crew, and failed to do any of the things required by 33 U.S.C. § 367. No reasonable cause for such failure has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • O'Shaughnessy v. Besse
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 8 d5 Junho d5 1979
    ...26 F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir. 1928), it was held that § 180 does not require lights on a moored vessel, and in Hill v. Fishing Vessel St. Rosalie, 277 F.Supp. 636, 639 (D.Mass.1967), the court said that a vessel tied to a mooring was not anchored. The court, describing facts resembling those i......
  • Lentz v. M/V Eastern Grace, 87-3732
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 5 d2 Julho d2 1988
    ...codified at 33 U.S.C. Sec. 367, imposed an absolute duty on the Eastern Grace to stand by and render aid. See Hill v. Fishing Vessel St. Rosalie, 277 F.Supp. 636 (D.Mass.1967). In 1984 Congress reorganized and updated various maritime laws. H.Rep. No. 338, Committee on Merchant Marine & Fis......
  • Sulphur Export Corporation v. Carribean Clipper Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 2 d2 Janeiro d2 1968
    ... ... with Carribean as chartered owner for the S/S KIM, or substitute vessel acceptable to charterer, for the carriage of 9500 tons of bulk sulphur ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT